User talk:Asdasdasdff

Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Constitutions: dynamic vs static documents
One of the big problems we have here is maintaining the historical versions of constitutions as static documents versus keeping the current version up-to-date. One of our key principles is to provide static documents, but for constitutions this doesn't seem to work as many editors treat them as dynamic. Any thoughts you have on how to deal with this problem would be most welcome. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah. I haven't logged into this wiki in awhile, I'm mostly just on Wikipedia.  I think that's an interesting issue though.  Some constitutions would seem to have much easier solutions than others.  For example, the U.S. constitution, there are just 27 amendments and they can all basically be listed sequentially as supplemental to the original text.  On the other hand, the Wisconsin Constitution has like 150 amendments and most of those are in-line edits to the original articles.
 * I do like how the Wisconsin Constitution page includes in each section a bit of a history of the times when the section was amended. It might be interesting to include the previous versions of the text with strikethroughs for deletions and italics for additions.  But it could get pretty messy.  Alternatively, maybe start each section with a blockquote of the current text of the section, but then in small script underneath add the historical text with strikethroughs and additions.
 * Or maybe just keep the current text of the document and use ref tags to note where language had been inserted or removed via amendment. I do kind of like the idea of creating a chronological list of the amendments using the ref tags.  -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)